[tlug] In Moderation [was "the philosophy of Subj."]

["Roger Markus" <rogermarku@example.com>]

On 6/24/07, Michal Hajek <hajek1@example.com> wrote:
> it seems I will be the first troll which will jump to the Jim's defence
> or perhaps the member of assumed 1% minority, who appreciate and
> completely agree with Jim at the point of Subj. header.

Okay, since you completely agree that always changing the subject
header is a good thing, I've taken the liberty of changing yours - I'm
sure you don't mind.  "The philosophy of Subj." is a reasonably good
Subject, but since you prefer Jim's method of always changing the
Subject, I'll accommodate by changing yours to "In Moderation" which
fits with the theme of this message better.  (I will not however, use
Jim's strange long string of dots to push the "was" part way off to
the side - I don't want to insult you the way Jim insults everyone
else.)

> My philosophy of Subj. header says that it should inform the reader
> about contents of this particular message. If carefully crafted, it can
> save the reader some time and at the same time, it expresses respect of
> the writer in the relation to the receiver(s).

Sounds reasonable.

> Relation among different messages should be expressed by using threads.

Also sounds reasonable (so long as you ignore real-world usage where
some people's mail clients don't think that the Subject is
meaningless).

> The use of [re] itself in different forms is another issue and should
> live in harmony with above statements.

Sounds like a lawyer speaking - very proper, but not clear and hard to pin down!

I hasten to say here that I am not against Subject changes when they
are called for - but with our good friend Jim, he does it nearly ALL
THE TIME!  Sometimes his new Subject lines make more sense, sometimes
they make less sense!  It should be done in moderation!

RM